The High Court has handed the All England Lawn Tennis Club a significant legal victory, ruling that the former Wimbledon Park golf course is not subject to a statutory public recreation trust. Save Wimbledon Park say they will seek permission to appeal, and warn the ruling has dangerous national consequences. Yesterday, the House of Lords passed an amendment (widely seen as tailored to help the tennis club) that would retrospectively strip the public of recreation rights over land sold without following the required legal process.
After six days of hearings in mid-January, Mr Justice Thompsell delivered his 122-page judgment on 19 March, finding comprehensively in favour of the AELTC and declaring that the golf course land is not – and never has been – subject to a statutory public recreation trust.
The outcome clears what had been described as the single greatest legal obstacle to the Club’s controversial £200 million expansion, which would see a new 8,000-seat show court, 38 new grass courts, and a host of associated facilities built across the former golf course site in SW19.
Save Wimbledon Park (SWP), which had been appointed representative defendant in the proceedings (with its legal costs covered by the AELTC) said it was “disappointed” by the ruling but immediately declared it would seek permission from the Court of Appeal to challenge the decision.
A response from the Court of Appeal is expected within approximately three months.
A complex issue of interpretation and what the judge decided
At the heart of the case was a question of legal history. In the 1960s, London’s local government was comprehensively reorganised: Wimbledon Corporation (the borough’s elected council at the time) was merged with Mitcham and Merton and Morden to form the new London Borough of Merton. Therefore, the key question was whether the golf course land became subject to a statutory public recreation trust under the Public Health Act 1875 when the Wimbledon Park Estate was transferred to Merton in 1965 as part of that reorganisation.
If established, the trust would have guaranteed the public permanent rights to use the land for recreation and rendered the AELTC’s development proposals incompatible with those rights. The Tennis Club had conceded this last point explicitly: if a trust existed, their scheme could not proceed.
Mr Justice Thompsell’s decision rested mainly on three independent and separate grounds, each of which supported the AELTC’s position. His reasoning was essentially straightforward: He found that the golf course land had never been used as public recreation by Wimbledon Corporation and therefore no such trust exists, and never had.
When Wimbledon Corporation acquired the Estate in 1915, it opened up what is now the public park for public enjoyment (and therefore fulfilling its duty to set aside at least 20 acres of the Estate for public walks, pleasure grounds or recreation), but it never did the same for the golf course. The golf course had been leased to a private members’ club continuously since 1900, fenced off from the public throughout, and therefore no public rights have ever emerged. In the judge’s view, land that had always been kept from the public could not be considered to have been dedicated to public recreation.
SWP had argued that a 1960s legal reorganisation (which transferred the Estate from Wimbledon Corporation to the newly-created London Borough of Merton) had the unintended effect of bringing the golf course under statutory public protection for the first time. The judge rejected this and considered that the purpose of the reorganisation legislation was administrative (simply to transfer the golf course land to Merton) and not to transform privately-used land into public open space.
“It was not the intended or actual effect of the 1960s legislation reorganising local government in London to change the basis on which it was held so as to cause the Golf Course Land to be held for the purpose of public recreation under PHA 1875” he commented.
The judge also noted that accepting SWP’s argument would produce “an utterly absurd and unworkable result” elsewhere. Under the same logic, social housing built on the Latchmere Estate in Battersea would have been subject to a trust requiring it to be used for public recreation instead, he commented.
Citing the Court of Appeal decision in Blake v Hendon Corporation [1962], the judge drew a distinction between a local authority’s duty to dedicate land to public use and the point at which the public actually acquires rights over it. Since the golf course had always been in the exclusive possession of a private club, no such public rights had come into existence, even when the AELTC purchased the freehold in 1993.
“[The] land never became held by LB Merton for the purposes of s. 164 PHA 1975, it never became the subject of a statutory trust and therefore the 1986 Lease and the 1993 transfer of the freehold were each made free of such trust” he said.
In a nutshell, he ruled that:
- The golf course was never set aside for public use – Wimbledon Corporation always kept it as a private golf club, so no trust ever arose in the first place.
- The 1960s reorganisation did not change the land’s status – its purpose was administrative tidying, not the creation of new public rights over privately-used land.
- Even if held under PHA 1875, a trust only comes into existence when land is actually opened to the public – which the golf course never was.
Each ground alone was sufficient to decide the case in the AELTC’s favour.
One question the judge deliberately left unanswered was whether the AELTC knew – or should have known – of any possible trust when it bought the land in 1993. Having found comprehensively in the Club’s favour on every other ground, he saw no need to venture an opinion on it.
At the very end of the decision, Justice Thompsell concluded:
“In essence I have found that land that had never been appropriated or designated for the purposes of public enjoyment could be sold without imposing onto the purchaser a public trust where one had never before existed.”
AELTC welcomes “important clarity”
The All England Club wasted little time in welcoming the outcome.
Deborah Jevans, Chair of the Club, said the ruling “confirms that the former Wimbledon Park golf course land is not, and never has been, subject to a statutory trust.”
She described the judgment as providing “important clarity on the status of the land” and “a significant milestone” for the Club’s plans, which she said would, alongside the sporting facilities, deliver “27 acres of beautiful new public parkland on previously private land.”
Jevans added that the Club had spoken to more than 10,000 local residents and that “the vast majority of people want us to get on and deliver the benefits of our plans as soon as possible.”
The Club’s statement noted that, with the trust issue “now resolved,” it would focus on “taking further steps to bring forward the plans“, including desilting Wimbledon Park lake, creating a boardwalk around it, building a new water sports centre and children’s playground, representing investment “in excess of £15 million.”
The £15 million earmarked for public realm improvements represents roughly 7p in every pound of the £200 million scheme. The Club has also not confirmed whether the new water sports centre will be free to use or run on a commercial basis with membership fees – a question that bears directly on how “public” those benefits will actually be.
SWP announced Court of Appeal bid
SWP was quick to make clear that this is not the end of the road.
Christopher Coombe, director of SWP, sounded a national alarm:
“We have always maintained the outcome of our case sets a precedent. Wimbledon Park is not just a local issue – it has significant national implications. This judgment is bad news for everyone in London and all around the country who live near similarly protected green space and open land which might now be bulldozed and built on.”
The implications of the ruling extend well beyond SW19. SWP had relied heavily on the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Day v Shropshire, which established that a statutory trust protecting public recreation land survives the sale of land into private ownership unless a specific public advertisement process is followed. But Mr Justice Thompsell found that Day simply did not apply here: that case concerned land already being used for public recreation, whereas the Wimbledon golf course had never been opened to the public in the first place. Where no trust has ever arisen, there is nothing for Day to protect and therefore that procedural issue raised by SWP was ultimately irrelevant, he said.
Therefore, the ruling significantly narrows the Supreme Court’s protection: a trust can only exist in the first place if land was first opened to public use, meaning that where councils quietly disposed of privately-used land without advertising, purchasers may now find themselves entirely in the clear.
Readers of CJI will recognise this question of what constitutes public recreation. We previously reported on the Wandsworth Common case, where a judge found that a private nursery operating on common land did not constitute public recreation — because the public had no right of access to it. As the judge put it, a council could not let premises on the Common to “a private provider to run a fee-paying private preparatory school” because “it would not be a facility for public use and the public would not have access to the premises.”
The cases are not identical, but the underlying logic can be seen as similar : just as a fee-paying nursery on common land is not public recreation, a private members’ golf club on the Wimbledon Park Estate was not public recreation either. Private use of land, however longstanding and however tolerated by a public authority, does not in itself create public rights.
Campaigners across the country who have relied on Day v Shropshire as a shield for their local green spaces will now be watching the future of the case very closely indeed.
SWP has given formal notice of its intention to apply to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the judgment, a decision expected within approximately three months.
Without preampting on the future decision, it must be noted the scale of what SWP has already faced. Before this trust case even began, the group fought and lost a judicial review of the Mayor of London’s decision to grant planning permission for the expansion. That case alone cost close to £200,000, raised entirely through community fundraising. A right to appeal has been granted and the crowdfunding campaign is still ongoing.
The trust case just concluded was funded by the AELTC, but SWP must now fund any Court of Appeal application themselves.
The covenants: the battle the judgment did not resolve
However, Mr Justice Thompsell’s ruling does not dispose of the matter entirely. The judgment itself explicitly acknowledged that the AELTC still faces the problem of the restrictive covenants it gave to the London Borough of Merton in 1993 when it purchased the land: covenants not to develop the golf course and to keep it open, as well as to provide a public walkway around the lake.
“The development will also require resolution of certain restrictive covenants in favour of LB Merton which are not in issue in these proceedings”, Mr Justice Thompsell said in his introduction.
The AELTC has already conceded that its proposed development would breach these covenants, and that it would need a further court application to have them removed if Merton Council decides to enforce them.
This means a third major battle lies ahead over the covenants – one on which Merton Council’s position remains of critical importance. As it was previously related in our articles, Wimbledon’s MP Paul Kohler observed that Merton Council has the power to enforce those covenants, but Labour-run Merton has so far refused to say publicly whether it would do so.
The planning appeal: still very much alive
Meanwhile, SWP’s challenge to the GLA’s planning permission (granted by Deputy Mayor Jules Pipe last September) is still pending in the Court of Appeal.
As we reported on CJI at the time, Mr Justice Saini’s controversial July 2025 ruling established that a local planning authority can greenlight a development regardless of whether it could ever legally be built. In our case, it means that the GLA could approve the expansion even while acknowledging the land was likely protected by a trust that would make construction illegal.
- Read our analysis: High Court rejects challenge to Wimbledon expansion, but legal battle continues with Trust and Appeal cases
Lord Justice Holgate granted permission to appeal last November, finding the claim had “a real prospect of success” and that key questions “merit review by the Court of Appeal.” That hearing has yet to be scheduled.
The current trust judgment complicates matters. If no trust ever existed, the GLA’s approval looks considerably less controversial. But since SWP is appealing that finding, the planning appeal retains its relevance – at least for now.
The House of Lords delivers a fresh blow: amendment passes 162–55, backed by Labour
Coombe also used the occasion of the judgment to flag what SWP regards as an additional threat to public green spaces across England. He warned:
“People should be aware that the House of Lords will soon be debating an amendment to the English Devolution Bill, aimed at giving those who buy statutory trust land, avoiding any statutory advertisement and consultation, a ‘get out of jail card’. If passed, the amendment will effectively negate the Supreme Court decision in Day v Shropshire.”
That warning has now become reality. The House of Lords has passed amendment 248 to the English Devolution Bill, tabled by Lord Banner, by 162 votes to 55 yesterday evening.
The Liberal Democrats voted against; Labour voted overwhelmingly in favour in a significant move, while most Conservatives abstained (with the notable exceptions of Lord Fuller and Lord Banner of course, who supported the amendment) – leaving the amendment’s opponents heavily outnumbered.
The amendment is retrospective in nature. It would allow developers who already find themselves holding statutory trust land – having purchased it without the required statutory advertisement and consultation – to apply to the Secretary of State for a “statutory trust discharge order,” effectively removing public recreation rights over land they have already acquired. In other words, it does not merely change the rules going forward: it hands the government the power to wipe out existing public rights over land even when the correct procedure was never followed in the first place.
It follows last year’s failed attempt by Lord Banner, Lord O’Donnell and others to attach a similar provision to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, intended to clear the legal path for the Club’s expansion. This version of the amendment does not simply regulate future conduct; it is designed to validate past transactions by giving the government a power that can be used after the event.
The minister responsible, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, had previously warned that the same mechanism would “operate retrospectively” and could conflict with the Local Government Act 1972, while signalling support for a consultative approach to protecting open spaces. Her subsequent decision to back the amendment marks a striking U-turn, especially as no public consultation on protecting spaces such as Wimbledon Park has yet taken place, despite government promises that one would.
Critics will note that the amendment effectively renders such a consultation moot: by empowering the Secretary of State to discharge statutory trusts on application, it substitutes a ministerial decision for the public process that was promised.
The amendment now passes to the Commons.
What happens next
Three battles now run in parallel: SWP’s Court of Appeal application on the trust, the planning appeal already granted permission but not yet scheduled, and the restrictive covenants agreed with Merton in 1993 – the one area where the AELTC has already conceded it is in breach.
For SWP and its supporters, who have been fighting this campaign for nearly five years, raised hundreds of thousands of pounds from the community, and marched more than once from Southfields station to the Rolls Building in all weathers, the message is consistent: this is a battle they intend to take all the way. The tennis club may have won the first set, but in the words of SWP itself: the match is not over.
Jeremy Hudson, secretary of SWP, commented:
“We love tennis but we continue the fight after this news because there is a strong case for protecting this precious open space from development. Wimbledon promised they would never build on this land. And Wimbledon can do better because there are existing, alternative plans which show that their scheme can be accommodated on their current site.”
Those alternative plans have been cited by SWP throughout the campaign as demonstrating that the AELTC’s desired expansion (including on-site qualifying rounds to bring Wimbledon into line with the other Grand Slams) could be achieved entirely on the Club’s existing side of Church Road, leaving the park untouched.
Hudson continued:
“These better plans would still allow AELTC to stage a qualifying tournament on site in keeping with the other Grand Slams. Therefore, we fight on.”
For those who want to understand what the alternatives might look like, SWP is holding two public meetings in the coming weeks. Local architect Ken McFarlane and tennis planning specialist Richard Rees (who master-planned Wimbledon’s 1990s redevelopment, including the No. 1 Court, Henman Hill, and the Athens Olympic Tennis Centre) will present their alternative proposals for the former golf course, plans which SWP argue could meet the AELTC’s requirements while causing significantly less environmental harm and allowing greater genuine public access to the site.
There will be time for questions and discussion at both events.
- Thursday 16 April, 7-9.30pm St Barnabas Church, 146 Lavenham Road, Southfields, SW18 5EP
- Wednesday 22 April, 7-9.30pm St Mark’s Church, St Mark’s Place, Wimbledon, SW19 7ND
SWP has announced that AELTC Chair Debbie Jevans has agreed to attend the meeting.
With local elections also approaching, and the question of whether the next administration at Merton Council will be willing to enforce the 1993 covenants very much unresolved, there is, as SWP puts it, much to say.
The full judgment – [2026] EWHC 628 (Ch), Claim No: PT-2025-000244 – is available from the National Archives case law database.
